Sentencing U-turns baffle courts
Sunday 01 August 1993
High Court judges and representatives from the Magistrates' Association and National Association of Probation Officers (Napo) told senior Home Office civil servants at a private meeting in June that the latest in a series of changes to the law should be postponed until 1994 to give sentencers time to understand how to operate the system.
However, Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, ignored their warnings of impending confusion and pushed ahead with legislation which will allow the courts to take the previous convictions of minor offenders into account.
The new measure comes into operation on 16 August. It alters the 1992 Criminal Justice Act which did not allow courts to take previous convictions of most minor offenders into account.
The Act was based on the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. Judges should not punish defendants twice by giving higher sentences to offenders with criminal convictions.
Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of Napo, said that total confusion was imminent because the Government was not saying to court staff they could simply go back to their old ways in August.
'The courts are now being told that they can punish people for past offences by looking at previous offences, as they could before October 1992,' he said.
'But they are also being told something new: that the sentences they give should not be 'disproportionate' to the crime before the courts. No one has the faintest idea what that means.'
Probation officers yesterday seized on Judge Robin Laurie's remarks at Southwark Crown Court last Friday to support their argument. The judge said the law gave him no option but to free Anthony Benton, 42, who has a 21-year history of sex convictions. He should have gone to prison for six to eight years for his latest attack, on a girl of nine, the judge said. 'Unfortunately for the public, the current sentencing practices would only permit me to give you 18 months in prison. You have already served that time.'
Mr Howard said yesterday that the judge had got it wrong. Even under the 1992 Act, judges could pass punitive sentences for violent and sexual offences and were able to take patterns of previous offences into account.
- 1 Man on naked bike ride gets ejected after becoming aroused
- 2 Fifa corruption: Europe plots to stage an 'alternative World Cup' in place of Russia 2018
- 3 How much sex should I be having?
- 4 Jaden Smith wears gender fluid dress to high school prom with Hunger Games actress
Caitlyn Jenner, formerly Bruce Jenner, reveals new look on Vanity Fair cover
Russian military jets and US destroyer clash in Black Sea 'posing danger to stability'
Ed Miliband returns to the backbenches but it's all a bit awkward as he tries to avoid eye-contact with fellow Labour MPs
Photographer who performed naked shoot in China's Forbidden City sparks outrage
Man on naked bike ride gets ejected after becoming aroused
Migrants in Kos: Photos show real tragedy after Brits abroad complain of 'awkward' holidays
Thousands of teenage girls enduring debilitating illnesses after routine school cancer vaccination
British tourists complain that impoverished boat migrants are making holidays 'awkward' in Kos
Michael Gove determined to scrap the Human Rights Act – even if Scotland retains it
Threat to scrap Human Rights Act could see UK follow Nazi example, warns UN official
Why this year's general election was the most unfair in Britain's history
£20000 - £22000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is an intermediate help de...
£20000 - £35000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This long established manufactu...
£70000 - £90000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A Financial Reporting Manager i...
£16000 - £25000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A young, vibrant and growing co...